"The Department has determined that your identified risk does not meet the good cause threshold as required under the new CCW policy based upon the information you provided. As a result of this determination, the Department's present intention is to revoke your CCW license," reads the form letter sent out this month.

Take them to court. The license was issued because the applicant met all the requirements needed at that time. Now I can see them not renewing because of the new law but not revoking a current one when there has been no infraction.

Ohio Sheriffs also have discretion. System seems to work pretty well here. I think it is reasonable for local law enforcement to be included to make sure someone who applies is not under suspicion for criminal undertakings even if they have not been brought up on charges yet. Probably a lot will disagree with me here, but if you have an anti-firearm sheriff you probably have a bigger problem than not being able to get a CCW.

The 2A is only a good cause if you believe it to be a good cause. The 2A does not constitute justification of risk which is what the Sheriff requires and the Sheriff has the authority to issue and revoke CCWs.

__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011

In SC the local Sheriff is notified of your application for a CWP and has 7 days to eitehr approve or deny it. If the Sheriff wants to deny it he notifies SLED and they follow up on it. If the Sheriff doesn't respond at all then it is approved. This is one reason for the slow turn-around for SC permits as very few applications are ever looked at by the local Sheriff so it takes the full time. Use to be they had 30 days.

The 2A is only a good cause if you believe it to be a good cause. The 2A does not constitute justification of risk which is what the Sheriff requires and the Sheriff has the authority to issue and revoke CCWs.

So, What You're saying then is the Sheriff can just willy nilly say who can carry, and who can not?
Remember, These are law abiding citizens we are talking about here.
-Bruce

I think it is reasonable for local law enforcement to be included to make sure someone who applies is not under suspicion for criminal undertakings even if they have not been brought up on charges yet. Probably a lot will disagree with me here, but if you have an anti-firearm sheriff you probably have a bigger problem than not being able to get a CCW.

How utterly absurd. There's a reason that we have a legal system with rules of evidence and the presumption of innocence. I have a serious problem with laws that deprive a person of their rights when they have not been convicted of a crime. At present, a person looses their 2A rights if they are subject to a restraining order or under suspicion for domestic violence. (Not sure if that's a federal or state law.) The burden of proof is much lower and the defendant doesn't even get a chance to be heard in some jurisdictions. In others, they don't even have to be notified of the hearing.

So a psycho vindictive ex decides to get back at you for some real or imagined insult. She gets a sympathetic judge to issue a restraining order against you in absentia and the next thing you know, the sheriff shows up at the door and confiscates your firearms. If you ever want to see them again, you're going to have to spend a lot of money on a lawyer. Your CCW application get denied, or your permit gets revoked. That's OK with you?

I don't care if the sheriff has me under surveillance and believes I'm cooking meth in my basement. Until I'm convicted of a crime, I should not lose any of the rights I enjoy as an American citizen. I've seen enough real investigations done that I don't ever want to be the subject of one. In one case, the authorities didn't interview the one person who was privy to the most information. They couldn't prove that the subject had done anything wrong, which he absolutely had.

If you can't tell, I'm extremely mistrustful of authority figures who have too much power. Having discretionary power as to what constitutes "just cause" is waaaayyyyyy too much power for one person.

__________________
To a much greater extent than most mechanical devices, firearms are terribly unforgiving of any overconfidence, complacency or negligence.

Ohio Sheriffs also have discretion. System seems to work pretty well here. I think it is reasonable for local law enforcement to be included to make sure someone who applies is not under suspicion for criminal undertakings even if they have not been brought up on charges yet.

the thing about discretion is that it doesnt have to be validated by such pesky things as "reasons" nor is there any reliable system to dispute the decision.

perhaps the officer under who's discretion the decision falls decides that he's just having a bad day, or perhaps the handwriting isnt neat enough, or maybe for some reason, the officer just has a "bad vibe"

an individuals "discretion" is a awfully shaky premise to rest ones rights upon.

If you can't tell, I'm extremely mistrustful of authority figures who have too much power.

Here Here!! Sounds a lot like some people I learned about in history class...Some guy named Washington, and I think there was one named Jefferson. Oooh Oooh, and I think Franklin and Hancock ring a bell too!!

The fact is, the main reason that our country came to be was a general mistrust of a large federal government. Some say it was "taxation without representation", others say it was "a freedom of religion" issue etc etc, but all of those issues are encompassed by the idea of a mistrust of "the king". That also explains why orriginally the federal government was extremely week - it couldnt even collect taxes!

__________________
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be an aisle at Wal-Mart, not a government agency!

It wasn't a mistrust of the King, just they didn't like what he was doing. You don't have to mistrust someone to disagree with them or think that they are an idiot. The King said the colonies couldn't do certain things and they said yes we are and did it anyway.

Ok, not mistrust in a sense that he was being dishonest. They didn't trust in his ability to lead fairly. They didn't trust that his rules/laws were what was in the best intrest of their society. Make sense?

__________________
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be an aisle at Wal-Mart, not a government agency!

Ok, not mistrust in a sense that he was being dishonest. They didn't trust in his ability to lead fairly. They didn't trust that his rules/laws were what was in the best intrest of their society. Make sense?

I can go along with that. Distrust of one's abilities or that they will do the best thing either intentionally or not is different. I trust Al Sharpton a lot more than John Edwards. But I do not trust either to do the best thing for the country? No!!!!!!!!

I trust McCain a lot more than Obama to do the best things for the country but I do not trust either one of them to do very many good things.

The way it works here is that issue is purely discretionary. In about half of the (mostly rural) counties CCWs are relatively easy to come by. In the urban centers and a couple of rural counties they are almost impossible to come by. In Los Angeles for example excellent political connections, and throwing celebrity filled campaign fund raisers for the sheriff are the only "good cause" necessary. On the other hand a mere common citizen with a clean record that could document that there is a contract out on their life would probably not be considered to have a good enough cause.

Orange County went from a sheriff famous for only issuing to cronies and contributers to a new sheriff that opened up permits to anyone with a clean record and something resembling good cause. Unfortunately he got caught with his hand deeply in the cookie jar and has been replaced with an anti gun political hack. She's in the process of routinely denying new permits and renewals, and revoking as many existing permits as possible. I suspect that things will eventually settle down into good cause being strictly defined as being a crony, political ally, or major contributer. But it's hard to say right now with her in full disarm the public mode. Since it is for all intents and purposes impossible to unseat a sitting sheriff she's likely there for life. We have a no Beauford Pussers law to prevent the peasantry from running for that office.

You have pointed out the problem with "May Issue". In theory the "May Issue" thought is great but sets it up to be ripe with cronyism and graft depending on the whim of the sheriff or judge with the power. To overcome this states must got to "Shall Issue" and make the sheriff state why they are denied rather than "I don't like him or he didn't contribute to my election". Local issuing of permits sounds great but leads to discrimination.

So, What You're saying then is the Sheriff can just willy nilly say who can carry, and who can not?
Remember, These are law abiding citizens we are talking about here.
-Bruce

Well Bruce, that is the law. It is up to the sheriff because it is a "may issue" law, not a "shall issue" law (although some places go through a judge, I understand, but many/most go through the local law enforcement). You can call it willy nilly or whatever you like because you don't agree with the parameters, but that doesn't change the law.

Of course they are law abiding people. If they weren't, they would not have been given CCWs in the first place. There will be plenty more law abiding people who won't get CCWs because the current sheriff will deny the requests because of a lack of justification. It doesn't make it right, but that is how it is.

__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011

Keep in mind that the law was originally intended to keep firearms out of the hands of minorities. Thus the requirement for a face to face interview. It was important to verify the race of the applicant. Thanks to Incitatus for posting this link earlier. These days it's simply evolved into a tool that allows the sheriff reward friends, supporters, and large contributers; and to punish political enemies by leaving them vulnerable to physical attack, robbery, rape, and murder. A tool few sheriffs won't fight to keep tightly under their control.

Because I think to a degree it's still done at an unconscious level. Why else keep the face to face aspect? It's also important to understand the history so that we can fully understand that it was always intended as an exclusionary good old boy system. Like all government encroachment on freedoms the powers that be promise that it only effects other folk, then pretty soon we all get screwed.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.